The City Council of the City of Columbia,
Missouri met for a regular meeting at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, February 16,
2004, in the Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri. The roll
was taken with the following results: Council Members HUTTON, LOVELESS,
JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON and JANKU were present. The City Manager, City
Counselor, City Clerk and various Department Heads were also present.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

The minutes of the regular meeting of
February 2, 2004, were approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion by
Mr. Ash and a second by Mr. Loveless.

APPROVAL AND ADJUSTMENT OF AGENDA
INCLUDING CONSENT AGENDA

Mr. John noted that he would be abstaining
from B20-04.

The agenda, including
the Consent Agenda, was approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion
by Mr. Loveless and a second by Mr. John.

SPECIAL ITEMS

None.

SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENTS

None.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

B1-04 Rezoning property located on the west side
of Maryland Avenue, between Rollins Street and Kentucky Boulevard from
R-3 to C-P; approving the Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity C-P development
plan.

The bill was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained that another request
to table this item was received.

Mr. Loveless made the motion that B1-04
be tabled to the March 1, 2004 meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr.
John and approved unanimously by voice vote.

B19-04 Voluntary annexation of property located
on the south side of Clearview Drive, north of the present city limits;
establishing permanent PUD-6 zoning.

The bill was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck noted that a proposed amendment
had been given to the Council.

Mr. Dudark explained that since the last
Council Meeting, the applicant had submitted a revised statement of intent.
He limited the development to townhomes, a maximum of two attached units
per building. There would be 20 units in 10 buildings. They also included
garages in the units and added perimeter screening, landscaping, and fencing
with 80% opacity. In addition, they added sidewalks on the south side of
the units.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

John Payne, 10951 I-70 Drive NE, explained
that with 20 units the density would be 5.3. In return, he stated, he would
be giving a second access to the Clearview Subdivision and another way
for the City to loop existing water mains in order to provide better water
service.

Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.

Mayor Hindman made the motion that B19-04
be amended per the amendment sheet. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hutton
and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Mr. Janku reiterated that he believed
the zoning to be inappropriate at this location. He thought R-1 would be
better and more consistent with existing zoning in both the County and
the City. The benefit of the water loop, he noted, would also be recognized
with R-1 development, as would improved access.

Because it was a small piece of property
and basically infill development, Mr. Ash was not worried about it propagating
out to other areas. He thought what negatives would result due to the higher
density, more would be gained since it was planned and because it would
provide an extra connection.

B20-04 Voluntary annexation of property located
on the southwest side of U.S. Highway 63 and on the north side of Gans
Road; establishing permanent PUD-1, PUD-3, PUD-4, O-P, C-P and C-3
zoning.

The bill was read by the Clerk.

Mayor Hindman noted that the proponents
provided a memorandum of understanding that involved substantial changes
in the application and requested that the memorandum of understanding be
attached to the ordinance. Because this was a substantial change, Mayor
Hindman believed the issue should be continued.

Mayor Hindman made the motion that B20-04
be continued. The motion was seconded by Mr. Loveless.

Mr. Janku asked about comments from anyone
on the issue. Mayor Hindman stated that he would ask Mr. Simon to explain
the memorandum and afterward anyone interested would be allowed to comment.
Anyone that had already spoken on the topic would be allowed to speak on
any new issues.

Mr. Beck pointed out that the City received
the memorandum late Friday and that the Council had not seen it until tonight.
Mayor Hindman explained that they had not had time to read it.

Dan Simon, an attorney with offices at
203 Executive Building, explained that as they had moved forward with this
issue, it had become apparent there were still a number of questions that
had not been dealt with, at least satisfactorily in the minds of the Council
and others. He enumerated the questions - Who was going to pay for various
road improvements and by what percentage? What was the issue about the
park? Would the park be acquired and what would it consist of? What was
the price? Would the lake in the park, if acquired, be suitable for recreational
purposes as well as stormwater purposes? How would it be protected? He
said various water quality issues continued to be raised as did the issue
about restricting the use of Tract 8. Mr. Simon reiterated that they would
not change their request for C-3 zoning on Tract 8. He noted that they
were trying to deal with the issue of restricting the use. He explained
the memorandum was not just in the interest of dealing with matters of
concern to the City and the public, but with matters that had become a
concern to them as well. He did not believe Mr. Sapp could move forward
with this development without some clear understanding about the policies
and procedures. Mr. Simon made it clear that the memorandum was a draft
and not set in stone. He also stated a component of the memorandum was
missing. He pointed out the reference, in the last paragraph, to a report
from the Public Works Department and indicated the Council did not have
that. The Public Works Department, he explained, was studying the water
quality issues and would hopefully provide a report both, the City and
Mr. Sapp, could deal with. He noted that was just as much a concern for
them as it was for the City.

Mr. Simon then listed other matters contained
in the memorandum. With respect to traffic improvement, it outlined Mr.
Sapp's share of the responsibility for the cost of the Gans Road overpass,
the relocation of Gans Road, and the relocation and improvement of Ponderosa
Street. The memorandum stated that his responsibility would be 50% of the
cost of those improvements. It described a method whereby Mr. Sapp, the
City, or anyone else providing funds to pay for the improvements, would,
over time, recover the funds advanced, through a Transportation Development
District, with each party expected to recover, pro-rata, a fractional share
of any disbursement made until all of the improvements were paid for. Regarding
the traffic impact study, he noted, the present ordinance stated that a
traffic impact study would not be required for use of the property for
up to 350 dwelling units. Due to an earlier understanding on their part,
based on a meeting with the Staff, as to what that meant, this issue was
also included in the memorandum. They extended the same requirement (350
units) to Tract 9, a C-P tract. They did that because they were told the
City did not want to acquire Tract 9 as a park, but the park would be immediately
adjacent to Tract 9 and would require access from a substantial street
or some other improvements through Tract 9, which Mr. Sapp would have to
provide. In order to do that, they would need to be able to use Tract 9,
and therefore extended the traffic impact study exemption to Tract 9. With
respect to the park itself, they had been told the City wanted to acquire
140 acres to include the lake. It would also extend in a truncated form,
as shown on the memorandum, to connect to Gans Road. Therefore, if the
City were to acquire any part of the Crane property, there would be connectivity
to the Crane property. He noted that 63 acres would be donated to the City.
The rest of the property could be acquired at a cost of $16,000 per acre.
He also stated that Mr. Sapp would make substantial improvements to the
lake so it would be suitable for use as a regional stormwater facility
and as a public recreational facility. The nature of those improvements
was generally described, but would ultimately be determined by agreement
between Mr. Sapp's engineers and the Public Works Department. Mr. Sapp
would advance the entire cost of the improvements, but would be allowed
to recover a fairly allocated portion of the cost from the City's stormwater
utility, since he would be upgrading the lake to make it suitable as a
regional stormwater detention facility, not only for the Philips property,
but for another 120 acres upstream. Mr. Simon proposed 50%, although, he
said, it was not engraved in stone. With respect to Tract 8, he explained
the proposal to be that the land the City acquired as a park, by donation
and by deed, would have running in its favor a declaration of restrictive
covenants, enforceable by the City as a property owner of the park. It
would restrict the use of Tract 8 to the same uses permitted on Tract 5,
a C-P tract, it would run with the land of both parcels, it would obligate
any owner of Tract 8, and it would run in favor of any owner of the parkland.

Mr. Simon asked the Council to table
the issue this evening if they felt these were items that could be resolved.
Their hope was that the issues raised in the memorandum could be reviewed
by City Staff, discussed with Mr. Sapp and his representatives, put final
form, presented to the Council, and discussed at a work session before
the March 1 meeting. If the approach suggested was unacceptable to any
Council Member, Mr. Simon asked that they be told as quickly as possible.
If there appeared to be a workable solution, Mr. Simon indicated, they
would be willing to talk with the understanding that something could be
worked out, introduced at the March 1 meeting as an amendment to the proposed
ordinance, and voted on at the March 15 Council Meeting. If in the meantime,
it was concluded they were going nowhere, he noted, they would step aside.

Mayor Hindman restated his motion to
table the issue to March 1, 2004 and that a work session be set to deal
with the issues. The motion, seconded by Mr. Loveless, was approved by
voice vote.

Mayor Hindman re-opened the public hearing.

John Blakemore, 4807 Bearfield, explained
that Mr. Sapp and his consulting staff were proposing to develop a sensitive
area with the largest development in the City's history, and had made a
very public statement on how it would be done. He believed Mr. Sapp intended
on doing everything he said he would do. The language of protection was
in line with what everyone wanted from this developer. He suggested the
Council be fair to the developer and the community by making certain the
pledges that had been made in the 10 page document be reflected in the
ordinance. Mr. Blakemore asked that base performance standards be included
in the ordinance, giving assurances to the Council, the City Staff, and
the citizens of Columbia that there was a bottom line standard that would
be met. The standards which had been developed by many of the concerned
citizens in the community were clear and fundamental guidelines that could
be used in this watershed as it was developed, regardless of who came along
later to develop in the Bonne Femme watershed. He stated developers would
not have to go through this process over and over again and the public
would not have to come forward time after time. Mr. Blakemore noted that
these were standards that should have been added in 2000 when there was
a pledge there would be no development in the Little Bonne Femme Watershed
until a Watershed Plan was put in place. These standards, he noted, were
similar to those of other communities. Regarding roads and things mentioned
by Mr. Simon being worked out between Staff and Mr. Sapp's group, Mr. Blakemore
thought citizen involvement should be included on the stormwater issues
because of all the good, knowledgeable, expert advice and science out there.

Mayor Hindman pointed out that the last
paragraph of the memorandum referred to standards.

Tom Moran, 413 W. Walnut, encouraged
further citizen input on the issue. He indicated people would like for
the process to be much more transparent. An input group on this issue,
he said, would be wonderful.

Dana Watts, no address given, stated
his concern for the environment and Rock Bridge State Park. He commented
that he was appalled by the push for development in the City.

Dan French, 1004 Hulen Drive, commented
that after listening to the developers present their material at the last
meeting, it had become clear to him that it was a presentation of only
a fraction of the facts and science. In a competitive situation, he said,
he could not expect both parties to present facts that were contrary to
their position and that it was normal for them to provide only support
for their cause. He remarked that the group of concerned citizens had neither
the financial resources nor the coordinational capacity of the developer.
Competition between the developer and a citizens group almost always goes
to the developer and he could hardly say the decision was based on an objective
appraisal of all of the facts. Mr. French felt that a major decision such
as this rezoning request deserved more consideration than the treatment
it had been given to this point. In order to make an informed decision,
he believed the Council needed an objective assessment of the impact any
development would have on the natural environment, the wildlife, and the
human occupants of the community involved. When considering a major proposal
such as this, he believed it should require an independent study funded
by an application fee paid by the developer. He felt this would result
in the Council being able to make a more informed decision than it could
with the process available at this time.

Mayor Hindman pointed out that the Council
had the benefit of a study that was done at the City's expense as well
as the information they received from the opponents of the development.

Fred Springsteel, 4200 Merchant Street,
stated his concern regarding public hearing procedures. He was also concerned
about the cost for the park and the fact this information was not disclosed
to the citizens of Columbia.

Matt Williams, 1609 Windsor Street, stated
he understood the financial impact of business versus the environment,
but asked the Council to consider the truth of what had been said by the
environmentalists in addition to the truth of what the developer was saying.

Jane Lavender, 115 Anderson, commented
that she had moved to Columbia for the parks. She stated she was from Kansas
City and all of the parks there were surrounded and unsafe. In addition,
she said, all the development around town was unsettling to her.

Bob Cook, 112 Ripley, asked the Council
to not be stampeded by the developer's attorney, especially in regards
to time frames and cost sharing issues. He asked the Council to protect
the environment and to vote for what the people wanted.

Mariel Stephenson, 2111 Rock Quarry Road,
believed the Council understood the people who oppose development had a
long history of concern, care, and a great love for the City of Columbia
and for the environment in regards to how it developed, both within the
City and externally. She said there was a great deal of the City that hungers
for the preservation of certain areas and the maintenance of those areas
for the benefit of everyone.

Alyce Turner, 1204 Fieldcrest, stated
that if this development was approved, the City would be saying the development
plan would protect us from the affects of stormwater under the Phase II
EPA Stormwater Clean Water Act. Regarding the purchase of 150 acres at
$16,000 per acre, including a possible regional stormwater facility - the
lake, Ms. Turner explained there was data stating you could not have recreational
uses in a stormwater facility. She said there were potentially too many
toxins in it, even for ice skating. She encouraged the Council to look
into that before the March meeting. She also noted that the Crane property
borders Rock Bridge State Park and suggested the Council revisit the plan
and look into purchasing more of the Crane property and less of this development.

Carolyn Mathews, 4200 Rock Quarry Road,
pointed out that a lot of students who might not keep up with Council issues
live in her area, run on Rock Quarry, and enjoy Rock Bridge State Park
very much. She said it was really important to a vast number of people
in the area to include herself and her family, and that we should not underestimate
the importance to look into all of the environmental ramifications of watershed
drainage - not just stormwater, but the entire impervious surface issue.
She asked the Council to take their time with deliberations, especially
for such as sensitive area.

Elizabeth Bergman, 8301 Guinn Lane, encouraged
the Council to limit development on the Philips tract. She asked why such
a massive development would even be considered on such a sensitive area.
Ms. Bergman talked about protecting the watershed and Rock Bridge State
Park. She noted that she was from Chicago and would have to drive two hours
to enjoy a park like Rock Bridge State Park. She indicated how lucky those
of us in Columbia were. She was also concerned about businesses that may
leave the central city to move to the fringes and about tax payers having
to pay to widen roads.

John Clark, 403 N. Ninth, believed this
huge project could generate lots of jobs and money. Things this size were
also opportunities for real smart growth, which, he explained, went beyond
environmental protection. He said it was an opportunity to address a number
of social inequities in terms of people who were already here who had non-living
wage jobs. He asked the Council to look at how that could be done and how
they might require the developer to make sure it was done. He suggested
the Council ask how they would provide transportation from the north side
of town to this area for work, during and after construction, and for shopping
after things were developed. If done right, Mr. Clark indicated it could
be a very beneficial project. Regarding tax revenues, he thought the figures
given earlier were good. He suggested the Council do an extremely sophisticated
return on investment analysis, beyond anything contemplated. This would
take into account up front costs, who was going to pay them, maintenance
costs, and the time value of money.

Mayor Hindman continued the public hearing
to March 1, 2004.

B39-04Voluntary annexation of property located
on the northeast corner of Scott Boulevard and Bethany Drive; establishing
permanent R-3 zoning.

The bill was given second reading by
the Clerk.

Mr. Beck described this as an approximate
.03 acre tract being recommended for approval by both the Staff and Commission.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

There being no comments, Mayor Hindman
closed the public hearing.

B39-04 was given third reading with the
vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN,
CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B40-04 Rezoning property located on both sides
of Wren Wood Drive, extended, from R-2 to R-1.

The bill was given second reading by
the Clerk.

Mr. Beck commented that this 8.9 acre
tract was being downzoned from R-2 to R-1 by the property owner at the
City Council's request. The Planning and Zoning Commission as well as the
Staff recommended approval.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

There being no comments, Mayor Hindman
closed the public hearing.

B40-04 was given third reading with the
vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN,
CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B41-04 Rezoning property located on the northwest
corner of Gray Oak Drive and Buttonwood Drive from O-1 to C-P.

The bill was given second reading by
the Clerk.

Mr. Beck described this property as 1.32
acres recommended for approval by both the Staff and the Commission for
C-P zoning subject to O-1 uses and stores, shops, and markets for retail
trades.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

Tom Schneider, an attorney with offices
at 11 N. Seventh Street, spoke on behalf of the contract purchasers, the
principals of Putnam Interiors, D/B/A A. N. E. LLC. He said they had outgrown
their successful location on Seventh Street and wanted to build a 10,000
to 12,000 square feet two story building on the subject site. Because the
property was submitted as planned commercial, they would come back at some
time in the foreseeable future to address such things as stormwater runoff
and etc. Mr. Schneider noted open C-1 on the south, a strip mall and vacant
land to the west, Social Security Administration building and Hawthorne
Educational Services to the east, and a church to the north.

Dana Watts, address unknown, stated his
concern regarding development within the City.

Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.

B41-04 was given third reading with the
vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN,
CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

(A) Sidewalk construction on the north side
of Business Loop 70 from Creasy Springs Road to Garth Avenue.

Item A was read by the Clerk.

Since this project would partially be
funded under the Federal Surface Transportation Program Enhancement funds,
Mr. Patterson pointed out it would be necessary to enter specific statements
into record. The hearing tonight was for the purpose of determining the
necessity of building a sidewalk along the north side of the Business Loop
from Creasy Springs Road to Garth Avenue. This project had been identified
as STP2116-504. All applicable federal guidelines would be followed during
the design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction of the project.
Plans would be subject to Federal Highway Administration review and standards.
Federal funds used for right-of-way acquisition or construction would be
spent in accordance with all applicable federal regulations. The right-of-way
acquisition process to be followed would include the right of the property
owners to obtain appraisals for their property. The proposed project had
been identified as having no significant impact on the environment and
a categorical exclusion from the need to prepare an environmental impact
statement was requested. Due to the various state and federal review schedules
and the anticipated right-of-way acquisition timetables, Mr. Patterson
noted it was expected that if Council authorized the project to proceed,
a contract for the construction would be let in Spring 2005. He stated
they were also required to have a verbatim transcript prepared of the hearing,
which would be submitted to the Department of Transportation as a permanent
record. Any person desiring to be heard was required to state their name
and address in order to make the record complete. Interested parties must
also submit written comments, evidence, or recommendations with respect
to the project to the Office of the Director of Public Works for the City
of Columbia, Post Office Box 6015, Columbia, Missouri, 65205. This must
be done within the ten days of the closing of the public hearing. That
information would also be made part of the transcript along with the affidavits
of publication for this public hearing. After receiving the public comments
on the project, the hearing would be closed and the City Council would
direct Staff to proceed in the manner desired by Council. Subject to approval
of the project by the City Council, the City would proceed with project
design, right-of-way acquisition, and construction in accordance with the
timetable outlined.

The project description included the
construction of a five foot sidewalk on the north side of Business Loop
from Creasy Springs Road eastward to Garth Avenue. The project would provide
improved pedestrian access to businesses and services in the vicinity.
One property particularly identified as receiving benefit would be the
Rusk Rehabilitation facility, a destination point for many pedestrians,
wheelchairs users, and bicycle riders. The total estimated project cost
was $295,000. Funding sources were from the Federal Surface Transportation
Program Enhancement funds, Local Transportation Sales Tax funds, and tax
bills to the adjacent properties. Tax bills proposed and set by this hearing
would be levied at a rate not to exceed $36.50 per abutting foot. The balance
of the funding was for that portion of the sidewalk from Creasy Springs
to the east side of the overpass on Business Loop 70, an area along State
right-of-way that would not be tax billed and would be entirely at the
expense of the City. The sidewalk would be approximately five feet from
the back of the pavement, curb to gutter, and would be adjacent to the
existing MoDOT right-of-way. Permanent and temporary easements would be
required from adjacent property owners. The University of Missouri owned
approximately 1300 feet of frontage along the Ellis Fischel Cancer Center
and the Rusk Rehabilitation Center. The project was being coordinated with
the Water and Light to underground the electric line on the north side
of Business Loop from I-70 to Parkade Boulevard. The Water and Light Department
would be acquiring a ten foot wide electric easement and the plan was to
have the line placed under the proposed sidewalk in order to minimize the
corridor of disruption. The electric line relocation would be completed
prior to the sidewalk project. Although, for the most part, the sidewalk
itself would be on existing right-of-way, Mr. Patterson said there would
be some private property required for permanent easements and there would
be construction and reconstruction of driveways and retaining walls in
order to minimize disruption of private property. There would also be some
impact on parking where they were currently utilizing some right-of-way
for private parking. The project length, from Creasy Springs to Garth,
was about 4,000 feet in length and of that, approximately 700 feet was
the property referenced from Creasy Springs to eastbound I-70 ramp. The
Staff had solicited input from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission and
other interested parties on the project, notice of the public hearing was
sent out as well as being advertised publicly, and an interested parties
meeting was held in November of last year at the Parkade Center where 12
persons were in attendance. He stated there was general support for the
project at that time.

Mr. Ash asked if there had been a business
group that wanted to be involved. Mr. Beck replied that they were not successful
getting the petition signatures necessary to formulate what they planned
to do. He said Staff had attended meetings trying to encourage programs
to do more than the sidewalk. Now, he said, we needed to move forward to
meet the deadlines for the grant.

Mr. Loveless asked about a landowner
that would not provide an easement. Mr. Patterson said that was for the
power pole and that he had objections to the tax bills and the electrical
project. He said he would not presume, at this point, that all of the easements
necessary would be donated. He felt they had included a fairly generous
allocation for acquisition of right-of-way. The actual cost would be tax
billed and could be cheaper than the maximum that was set tonight if we
were fortunate enough to get the right-of-way donated or at a low cost.

Mayor Hindman asked if we would be able
to tax bill the University. Mr. Boeckmann said Staff would work with them.
Mayor Hindman asked if that had been taken into consideration in the estimate.
Mr. Patterson replied that the total cost includes the tax bill against
all properties. In their discussions with the University, he said, they
did recognize this was a valuable project even though no one was looking
forward to the expenditure. He stated that they did not foresee an effort
on the part of the University to block it in any way. He thought they would
work with Staff.

Mayor Hindman asked if trees could be
planted in the five foot strip. Mr. Patterson explained that the Department
of Transportation regulated what went in there and added that they were
reluctant to allow plantings that close to the curb. He thought there might
be some opportunities as they got into the design. What Staff would like
to see, particularly along the Rusk Rehabilitation Center, was to be able
to get further away from the property and actually on property where they
would have some opportunities for landscaping. Mayor Hindman asked if there
would be utilities buried underneath that would prevent planting. Mr. Patterson
said there would be planting possibilities, but noted that the project
estimate did not include landscaping. There were landscaping plans down
by the West Boulevard area, which the Parks and Recreation Department developed.
Generally speaking, the cost estimates and monies available did not include
extensive landscaping along the sidewalk itself.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

Greg Ahrens speaking for Kathleen Weinschenk,
a member of the Disabilities Commission, both of 1504 Sylvan Lane, explained
that the Commission recommended a six foot sidewalk with a five foot buffer.
They would like the Council to consider safe access across the busy intersection
at Business Loop and Garth and recommended improving sidewalks along both
sides of Garth, creating a corridor to the Library and downtown. Ms. Weinschenk
was concerned about a car dealership letting their cars hang over where
the sidewalk would be.

Speaking for himself, Mr. Ahrens thought
it was important to allow some "shy space" when there were retaining walls.
He said it would also be a good idea to have the sidewalk a little wider
so wheelchair users did not rub against the wall. He noted having seen
children riding their bikes against traffic coming from Cosmo Park. The
use of sidewalks for bicycles was allowed everywhere, except downtown.
Mr. Ahrens pointed out that when using public transportation, part of the
trip was still as a pedestrian. He indicated it would be useful for all
kinds of people to have the sidewalk along the Business Loop for access
to businesses, to the park, and to just get back and forth. He asked the
Council to proceed with the project.

Amahia Mallea, 211 Alexander, spoke as
a board member of the PedNet Coalition. She stated that they had been working
hard to make Columbia a more walkable, bikable and wheelable city to live
in. As a pedestrian and cyclist, the Business Loop was one of the black
holes of the City and a very difficult place to get across to have access
to any place along the Business Loop. There were lots of paths worn by
people forced to walk next to the curb in the grass or through the parking
lots. PedNet saw this project as one piece of a larger plan to make this
a more accessible location. Ms. Mallea thought we had previously established,
maybe in the Model Street Standards discussion, six feet being preferred
to five for the standard for wheelchairs. Because of the proximity to Rusk
Rehabilitation, she felt, six feet would be more amenable in this area.

Steve Kuhlman, 205 S. Garth, a member
of the Track Club, the multi-sport club and Chair of the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Commission, spoke as an individual to the issue. He saw nothing wrong with
the project and thought it was a good use of public resources. He agreed
that six feet would be better if the budget and right-of-way would allow
for it. Mr. Kuhlman suggested integrating the transit facilities by building
a couple of bus stop pads for shelters and benches where needed. He noted
that was something not addressed in previous Public Works projects. Although
it would be a budget problem because of federal funds coming out of different
departments, he said, it would be the most efficient time to add those
facilities.

Mayor Hindman closed the public hearing.

Mr. Janku said the crossing at Garth
and Business Loop had been mentioned and thought it was something we were
planning to address to make it a more pedestrian friendly crossing. He
was hopeful that would occur in conjunction with this project. He thought
eventually there would be a sidewalk on the other side of the street, but
that this was the first step. When attending the interested parties meeting,
there were properties on the other side of the street actually asking why
this side was selected first. Once this precedent was set, Mr. Janku was
hopeful the entire length of the Business Loop would be addressed.

Mr. Janku asked about the retaining walls.
Mr. Patterson stated there had been areas identified where they were anticipating
retaining walls, but that they were talking about one foot to eighteen
inches. There would be some work on driveway entrances, taking them back
a little further or replacing them in those locations. With respect to
the six versus the five feet, Mr. Patterson explained that the additional
width would be toward the street, which would change it from a five foot
separation between the curb and the sidewalk to a four foot separation.
That was a general template. He estimated the extra cost to be $16,000
to $20,000 for the entire 4,000 feet.

Mr. Ash thought the extra foot made sense
given the location of Rusk Rehabilitation Center.

Mr. Janku noted a fair amount of bicycle
traffic on the Business Loop and said that was where one needed a little
more space where people on bikes were intermingling with pedestrians. Given
the destination of Cosmo Park, which the City was trying to make more accessible,
Mr. Janku said, it would have some benefit.

Mayor Hindman suggested Staff look carefully
at the six feet. Mr. Patterson responded they could provide a report before
the bid call.

Mr. Loveless made the motion that Staff
be directed to proceed with final plans, specifications, and documents
for federal approval, looking at both, the five and six foot, options.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice
vote.

(B) Voluntary annexation of property located
on the southwest corner of Old Mill Creek Road and Old Field Road.

Item B was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained that this voluntary
annexation involved 20.6 acres with a request for R-1 zoning on one tract
and A-1 on the other tract. Currently the site was developed with a single
family home and some out buildings. This was a Boone Electric Service territory,
with an eight inch sewer line to the northeast of the property. Presently
the property was served by Consolidated Public Water Supply District 1.
The property was in the Boone County Fire Protection District. If annexed
to the City, Mr. Beck said it would receive City Police services as well
as solid waste services.

Mayor Hindman opened the public hearing.

There being no comments, Mayor Hindman
closed the public hearing.

(C) Voluntary annexation of property located
on the n orth side of Old Field Road, east of Vineyard Way.

Item C was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained this ten plus acre
tract to lie south of the existing City limits. The property contained
a single family home with a barn. The request was for A-1. The property
was within the Boone Electric territory, had an eight inch 540 feet sewer
line, was served by Consolidated Water District 1, and was located in the
Boone County Fire District. If annexed, it would be served by City Police
and solid waste services, unless waived.

Mr. Beck explained that currently the
property contained a service station and a small grocery type store. It
was located on the southeast corner of Route B and Route HH in northeast
Columbia. The property was not contiguous with the City and under a previous
agreement the City was running a trunk sewer in that general direction.
If they were allowed to hook on to the City's sewer line, he noted, they
would have to sign a pre-annexation agreement. If brought into the City,
the zoning request would be for C-3.

Mayor Hindman noted that the present
zoning was County C-GP. He asked why we would not want them to have the
comparable zoning, C-P. Mr. Ash thought it was strange to have less restrictive
zoning in the City than there was in the County. Mr. Dudark explained that
Staff had provided that information to the applicant - that it would be
a change from the equivalent zoning, which was planned commercial.

Mr. Janku understood because it was an
already developed site they would not have to submit a plan. Mr. Dudark
replied that was correct, unless they had an expansion or something similar.

Mr. Hutton inquired as to the age of
the development on the site. Mr. Dudark thought it had been there a few
years. Mr. Hutton felt there was not an eminent possibility of it being
redeveloped, but pointed out that the zoning would be forever.

Mr. Loveless asked for clarification
of paragraph 11 of the agreement. Mr. Boeckmann explained that if the Council
approved the agreement as it was, with the C-3, when the property became
contiguous and the issue of zoning was before the Council, and if they
refused to zone it C-3, they could stay outside of the City and still receive
sewer service. If the Council approved the pre-annexation agreement, Mr.
Hutton pointed out, sewer service would probably be in place by the time
it became contiguous.

Mr. Beck asked what the Public Works
Staff thought. Mr. Patterson replied that the department felt this should
not even be a condition of agreement or zoning. He explained that they
had an ordinance to acquire this easement. He pointed out that they had
filed condemnation on it and never felt they should be negotiating zoning
for a sewer line easement. Mr. Boeckmann added that they had told the property
owner's attorney that the Staff felt the Council would have a problem with
the C-3 zoning. He said the property owner had held firm to the request
and indicated that was what he wanted presented to the Council.

Mr. Loveless made the motion that B46-04
be amended to read C-P rather than C-3. The motion was seconded by Ms.
Crayton and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Chris Sander, Crockett Engineering, 2608
N. Stadium, stated the owner was willing to work with C-P zoning with C-3
uses.

Mr. John asked what uses would be assigned
under County C-GP. Mr. Sander was not sure. Mr. John thought they would
be establishing the same uses that were already in the County's C-GP, but
not all C-3 uses because they did not know if he would be allowed to have
tractor sales and that sort of thing.

At this point there was a discussion
about having the same restrictions on uses as in the County's C-GP zoning.
Mr. Boeckmann suggested they amend it to C-3 with uses allowed in the County's
current zoning or CP with uses allowed in the County's C-GP. That way,
when they came in for the actual zoning, they could see what was comparable.
Mr. John noted that they were making the assumption, at this point, that
what the County approved was something the Council would want to approve
also - without knowing what they approved.

Mr. John made the motion that B46-04,
as amended, be further amended to read - similar restrictions as in the
County C-GP zoning ordinance as they exist today for this particular property.
The motion was seconded by Mayor Hindman and approved unanimously by voice
vote.

B46-04, as amended, was given third reading
with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN,
ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted,
reading as follows:

CONSENT AGENDA

The following bills were given second
reading and the resolutions were read by the Clerk.

B42-04Vacating street right-of-way in conjunction
with the proposed Final Plat of Eastport Village Plat 3-A.

B43-04Approving the Final Plat of Eastport Village
Plat 3-A, a Replat of Lots 310, 311 and 312 of Eastport Village Plat
3.

B44-04Approving the Final Plat of Woodland Springs
Plat 1; authorizing a performance contract.

R30-04Authorizing a contract with the Missouri
Department of Health and Senior Services for the HIV Prevention Project.

R31-04Accepting an Emergency Management Performance
Grant from SEMA.

R32-04Accepting grants from SEMA for Community
Emergency Response Team training.

The bills were given third reading and
the resolutions were read with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES:
HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN, ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE.
Bills declared enacted and resolutions declared adopted, reading as follows:

NEW BUSINESS

R33-04Authorizing an Adopt A Spot beautification
agreement.

The resolution was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck commented the Staff was pleased
that the Columbia Garden Club chose to take over the responsibility for
bed eight on Forum Boulevard.

Mayor Hindman, on behalf of the Council,
thanked the Garden Club for their interest.

Mr. Beck explained that the request was
in conformity with the established guidelines.

John Clark, 403 N. Ninth, commented that
he was pleased to see another neighborhood had applied for recognition
by the City.

Mr. Ash felt people were confused and
thought neighborhood associations and homeowners associations were the
same thing. He pointed out that only neighborhood associations were notified
of issues coming up in their respective areas.

R35-04Certifying a local organization as a community
housing development organization; amending the 2003 Action Plan; authorizing
agreements for allocation of CHDO funds.

The resolution was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained this would allocate
$25,000 of Federal HOME funding to Columbia Enterlight Ministries and $28,846
of the 2003 funds to the Central Missouri Counties Human Development Corporation.
It also formally designates Columbia Enterlight Ministries Community Development
Corporation as a CHDO for funding received during the 2003 and 2004 program
years.

Mr. Ash asked about CMCHDC's building
two houses for $190,000. He was hopeful more than two homes could be built
for that amount. Mr. Janku replied that other entities should apply to
qualify as a CHDO so more cost estimates would be available. Ms. Crayton
noted that many times the land needed to be purchased with some of the
money. Mr. Ash had no problem with this and noted it looked like they were
having a hard time finding people who were qualified to do these types
of projects. Mayor Hindman pointed out the overhead involved. Mr. Hutton
noted the projected sales price to be $95,000. Mr. John commented that
the average sales price for a home in 1991 had been under $80,000. Today's
average sales price was over $125,000. It was the cost of land, materials,
and labor. Although $65.00 per square foot might be not the cheapest, Mr.
John knew of no builders doing it under $60.00 per square foot. In this
case, he noted, they were being built one at a time and in isolated areas.
The logistics, he explained, made it difficult because they would not be
able to bring in a train load of lumber and set it on site to build four
houses moving the crews back and forth. He said it became very labor intensive.
Mr. John also explained that the YouthBuild people went to a class to learn
from teachers before they went out and built something. He did not see
a whole lot of "fat" in this instance. Depending upon where the houses
were located, they may or may not have problems selling them.

Mr. Ash stated that it might not be that
anyone was trying to charge more than they should, but that it might just
be that when it was done this way it was more expensive.

Mr. Dudark noted a $25,000 cap per house
that came from the HOME funds for all uses. If they went over that, they
were required to find the saving within their own budget. He also noted
the $25,000 included the amount the homeowner would get for the down payment
and the subsidy.

John Clark, 403 N. Ninth, commented that
this was not about inefficiency, not-for-profit housing developers, or
about government. He reiterated what Mr. John had reported. He said the
HOME money was being used by the not-for-profit housing developer, the
CHDO, so they could lower the price they had to charge the homeowner. The
vote on R35-04 was recorded as follows: VOTING YES: HUTTON, LOVELESS, JOHN,
ASH, HINDMAN, CRAYTON, JANKU. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted,
reading as follows:

R36-04Approving the Preliminary Plat of Hawks
Ridge.

The resolution was ready by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained that this 5.30 acre
tract in northeast Columbia would create five R-1 zoned lots and two PUD-7
lots.

Mr. Dudark noted that the Commission
recommended approval with two conditions. One was that the wooded area
in the northwest part of lot 6 be a green space conservation easement on
the final plat, restricting any development. The other was that a note
be placed on the plat indicating the five R-1 zoned lots had the same restrictions
and covenants that applied to Eastland Hills. That note was already added
to the plat.

Mr. Hutton noted a homeowner concern
in the report about stormwater. He asked about the stormwater plan. Mr.
Patterson replied that it would have to be approved at the time the final
plat came in. It would be needed before any building permits would be issued.
Mr. Hutton asked about the problem. Mr. Patterson said he had not heard
about any significant problems.

Mayor Hindman asked about the reference
to a reactive pedway. He assumed that meant it would be put in when the
street went in. Mr. Dudark replied that it meant if there was a construction
project on St. Charles Road the plan would show the pedway as part of the
project. At this point, he noted, there were no plans for St. Charles.

Chris Sander, Crockett Engineering, 2608
N. Stadium, commented that in revising the preliminary plat to add the
notes regarding the covenants, they also added a label saying the wooded
area would be shown as a green space conservation easement. As part of
the development of the PUD plan that would be discussed in a few weeks,
a stormwater management plan had been developed and approved.

R37-04Endorsing a master plan for the development
of the Boone County Fairgrounds/Atkins property.

The resolution was read by the Clerk.

Mr. Beck explained that a presentation
had been made jointly to the Council and the Commission regarding options
for development of the property. At the Council work session, the options
were discussed and Staff was asked to draft a resolution indicating City
support for option 3 - building a ballfield on the Atkins property. The
Council specifically indicated they did not want to commit to any financing
for construction or maintenance at this point in time. Another condition
was that the Council and staff be given an opportunity for input on any
detailed plans and specifications for the use of the jointly owned property.
The Council had not ruled out joint participation in the future with regard
to maintenance and operation. He informally indicated to the Commission
that the Council would be acting on a resolution this evening, and if adopted,
he would forward a copy to them along with the Staff's report.

Mayor Hindman felt that since it was
jointly owned, the City should be willing to do their part, but thought
timing issues might come into play. He gave the Philips tract as an example
- should the Philips tract proposal be approved, there would be an opportunity
for them to decide whether or not they wanted to purchase the park. When
things like that come along, it might make it more difficult for them to
go forward and help with a joint venture. Since it was a joint project,
however, he felt, they needed to think of it as part of park planning.

With Council endorsement of option three,
Mr. Beck said the County Commission felt there would be a better chance
of receiving the grant they were pursuing and raising private funding,
at least for the capital portion of the ballfields.

B60-04Accepting a conveyance from the Missouri
Highways and Transportation Commission in connection with the Grindstone
Parkway project.

B61-04Authorizing acquisition of easements for
the West Boulevard-Marygene Street drainage improvement project.

B62-04Confirming the contract with C.L. Richardson
Construction Company, Inc. for the construction of sewers in Sanitary
Sewer District No. 157 (Rollins and Burnam Avenue); appropriating funds.

B63-04Accepting conveyances for utility purposes.

B64-04Authorizing construction of improvements
to Highpointe Park.

B65-04Authorizing a PCS antenna agreement with
US Cellular.

B66-04Granting an extension of the cable television
franchise held by Charter Communications Entertainment I, L.L.C.

B67-04Authorizing a grant agreement with the March
of Dimes for the Latino Home Visiting Expansion Project; appropriating
funds.

REPORTS AND PETITIONS

(A)Intra-departmental Transfer of Funds.

Report accepted.

(B)Neighborhood Improvement Districts (NIDs)

Mayor Hindman commented that there was
another type of district, a community improvement district, and suggested
they receive a report on that also for comparison purposes. Mr. Beck noted
a listing of the different types and said he would report back on them.

With respect to the people coming forward
about problems in the fringe areas of the City, Mr. Ash suggested the Council
ask them to consider setting up a district. He felt this would at least
give them an option. He stated it looked as though the boundaries had to
be within either the City or the County, but noted a lot of the problems
that come up were on the edge. He suggested setting up a County NID and
a City NID next to each other. Mayor Hindman agreed. May Hindman commented
that if one could get the neighborhood to contribute to parks, then perhaps
the City could partner with them. Another issue that came up frequently
where he thought this would work was traffic calming. If enough of the
neighborhood was unhappy, they could form a NID and ask the City to partner
with them. Mr. Ash commented that he had been contacted by someone aware
that an area was in need of work and who was willing to put in their fair
share. If there were other people like her, he felt, they should be encouraged
to organize.

Report accepted.

APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS:

Upon receiving the majority vote of the
Council the following individuals were appointed to the following Board
and Commission:

Regarding a report received
from the Planning Department, Mr. Janku noted the Council would have to
make some recommendations regarding a CDBG issue. He asked that it be put
on their work session list.

Also related to CDBG, Mr. Janku was hopeful
the Commission would take into account bus access to new facilities for
which they were requesting funds. He asked that the Commission impress
upon the applicants the importance of these facilities being accessible
to City bus lines, if at all possible. Mr. Ash asked if he was asking them
to pick the projects based on the bus line. Mr. Janku said he was. Mr.
John asked about types of projects. Mr. Janku stated he was referring to
any kind of facility people would need to access. Mr. Ash suggested some
type of check list for the Commission. Mr. Janku liked the idea. He recalled
when the Employment Office was built at Bluff Creek, points being available
for it being on a bus line. He noted it was a state contract and a state
award, but that was one of the items on their list. Even though it was
not on a bus line, the project received enough points. Ms. Crayton commented
on how far out the Greyhound Station was - by the Ice Chalet. She said
people were making decisions that affected Columbia although they did not
live here.

Mr. Janku made the motion that the CDBG
Commission be asked to consider this for evaluating requests for funding
for establishing facilities. The motion was seconded by Mr. John and approved
unanimously by voice vote.

Regarding the Broadway Improvement Project
report discussed at the last meeting, Mr. Janku said he had not brought
up the access issues at the intersection of Old 63 and Broadway. Before
the concrete was poured, he asked that the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission
and Disabilities Commission take a look at it to make sure nothing was
overlooked. Mr. Loveless reminded him that there was a Broadway Sidewalk
Committee working on the issue and that they might have received input
from that group. Mr. Janku said he would still like to hear from the other
two entities. He said there were certain points at that intersection where
the light could not be seen so there was no way of knowing when to cross.

Mr. Janku made the motion that the Bicycle
and Pedestrian Commission and the Disabilities Commission be asked to review
the issue and report back. The motion was seconded by Ms. Crayton and approved
unanimously by voice vote.

Ms. Crayton commented that she had received
information regarding her request on trimming trees at the intersection
of Hirth and Worley. She asked everyone to be conscientious about keeping
the intersections clear so people did not have to pull out into traffic.
She said she would also like to see the pot holes taken care of on Worley.

Regarding the one stop shop on Vandiver,
Ms. Crayton reported that the yellow sticks had been knocked down again.

With respect to comments made earlier
this evening, Mr. Ash commented that he was open to hearing logical and
reasonable input, but said if anyone was trying to sway Council opinion
and thought that yelling and criticizing them would do that, it was not
the best logic.

Regarding the memo from Public Works
about the downtown sidewalk beverage container recycling pilot program,
which basically said they were going to discontinue it because the Downtown
Association was not going to pay for it, Mr. John thought we should try
to keep as many recycling programs going as possible. He asked if the Council
could budget the monthly fee per container until The District's next budget
was discussed. At that time, the Council could make sure it was in their
budget to continue the program. Mr. Ash did not think it seemed like much
money, especially from a PR perspective, and thought they should keep them.
Mr. Janku asked if anything was being put in them. Mayor Hindman asked
how long they had been there. Mr. Patterson replied that they had been
there more than six months and were not doing very well. He said they were
getting quite a bit of contamination in them and the SBD was not in favor
of continuing it. He pointed out that the containers had already been removed,
but said they could be reinstituted if the Council so desired. He said
they had indicated it would be a trial project and The District was supposed
to evaluate whether or not they wanted to keep them. He noted they were
also promoting the individual recycling at businesses. Mr. Janku asked
if he planned to put the containers in use throughout the City in general.
Mr. Patterson said trash was predominantly being put in them. He stated
they were getting a much better use of on the ones at the Break Times and
other service station locations. Mr. Beck asked if they were talking about
taking it out of the general solid waste utility budget. Mr. Patterson
said he had not suggested that. Mr. Janku thought Mr. John had suggested
that. Mr. Patterson said they could determine it to be a public benefit
and take it out of the general fund. Mr. Beck suggested a separate rate
on the dumpster. Regarding rates for recycling, Mr. Patterson noted they
were maintaining rates for the recycling of commercial material to keep
it below the commercial disposal rates. If they tried to incorporate it
into the general collection rate, they would be in competition which would
inflate the cost because that was not included in the cost of private competitors.

Mr. John commented that they received
a Staff report regarding fire responses and other background information
so the Council could start discussing any changes that could be made. Mr.
Beck asked the Council to forward any specific requests to him so they
could be looked into.

Mayor Hindman suggested a pamphlet that
could be distributed to perspective home buyers that would tell them about
the services they would be getting before they purchased a home. Mr. John
pointed out that realtors generally suggest that people refer to the source,
such as City, School Board, etc. Mayor Hindman suggested that the information
be made available through the Web page. Several suggestions were made as
to how it could be done.

Mayor Hindman made the motion that Staff
be directed to report back on the issue with alternatives. The motion was
seconded by Mr. John and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Mayor Hindman understood credit cards
would soon be used on parking meters. Mr. Patterson replied that this had
been one of the items talked about at budget time. It was included as a
pilot project for this year in selected areas downtown. He said they were
looking at an implementation time in March with press releases going out
before too long. Mr. Janku asked where they would be. Mr. Patterson replied
that some would be on Ninth Street and Broadway. He said they worked with
the SBD to determine the most appropriate locations.

Mayor Hindman understood the YouthBuild
Program was not going to be funded. Ms. Crayton commented that she had
talked with someone who had said they would make sure that Columbia was
reinstated. If we could not get federal funding, Mr. Janku suggested there
might be a way to obtain funds through the HOME CDBG process.

Mayor Hindman commented about Parks and
Recreation running out of scholarship money for the ARC last year. He asked
how it was going this year. Mr. Hood responded that in FY 03 they actually
utilized all of the scholarship money by the latter part of July. They
then placed anyone applying on a waiting list. As soon as they began the
fiscal year in October, those people on the waiting list received consideration.
At this point, he reported, no one on the waiting list. Mr. Hood stated
they were beginning to process some renewal requests for scholarships and
at this point they were not sure what their demand would be over the next
few months as the renewals came in along with new requests. Ms. Crayton
commented that another fund raising drive might be in order. She offered
to help solicit businesses for donations. Mr. Hood noted that they have
set aside some scholarship funding for summer, but would be open to recruitment
of additional donations to the scholarship fund. Mayor Hindman asked that
the Council be kept apprized of the situation.

With the possibility of acquiring a park
in connection with the Philips Tract, Mayor Hindman stated he thought the
Parks and Recreation Commission should be involved as early as possible.
Mr. Hood noted that they met the third Thursday of each month. Mayor Hindman
suggested they receive information as to what the park might look like
so they could comment on it as best as they can. Mr. Janku agreed and was
hopeful they could be shown the schematic the Council had at the public
work session two weeks ago. Mr. Hood said they could add the issue to the
Commission's agenda.

Mayor Hindman made the motion that the
issue be added to the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting agenda. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Janku and approved unanimously by voice vote.

Regarding the standards for stormwater
runoff, Mayor Hindman thought the services of CH2M Hill should be utilized.
He stated he would also like to see us look at what Austin, Texas had done
around Barton Spring.

John Clark, 403 N. Ninth, introduced
himself as one of the three Mayoral candidates and said he would like to
have several forums organized for the three candidates to discuss the future
of Columbia.

Arch Brooks, 3414 Bonny Linn, also introduced
himself as a Mayoral candidate and suggested that the Philips issue be
tabled and a new location be considered.